Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Appellate court upholds exclusion of dog-scent lineup evidence

Good news for opponents of junk science in the courtroom: Brandon Barnett at Liberty and Justice for Y'all brings word that the First Court of Appeals in Houston has once again benchslapped testimonial evidence in a capital murder case from Fort Bend Sheriff Deputy Keith Pikett's bloodhounds, when yesterday they:

issued an opinion in another case involving the Fort Bend County dog handler. Much like the last case I posted about, the dog handler was used to match a murder suspect's scent with the scent of certain evidence from the crime scene. This time, however, the scent lineup evidence did not even make it to the trier of fact. After hearing the views of competing experts, the trial judge ruled that the evidence was inadmissible as unreliable. Some of the flaws in the dog handler's methodology that the court noted were:

His foil samples are old samples, while the scent sample of the suspect is fresh;

He does not do negative runs where the sample of the suspect is excluded;

He uses multiple dogs during each test rather than allowing the dogs to work alone; and

He is mostly self-taught and his methodology is something he created.

On appeal, the State argued that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to admit the evidence. The First District upheld the trial judge's ruling, holding that it was reasonable for the trial court of conclude that the scent lineup evidence was unreliable.

The trial court had excluded dog scent evidence as unreliable - good for District Judge Clifford Vacek - and and the First Court of Appeals upheld his ruling. The trial court also made the following conclusions of law:

2. Human scent identification by a canine is not sufficiently reliable to be admitted in evidence in a criminal trial. See Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549, 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

However, the First Court ruling (pdf) stops short of issuing those words from Justice Jane Bland's own pen, but she agrees that the record supports the trial court's findings of fact and upholds decision to suppress dog-scent evidence. Regular readers will recall that dog scent lineups had already been discredited at the Court of Criminal Appeals, which may soon be asked to rule on suppressing dog-scent evidence altogether if the state (as I hope) chooses to appeal the First Court's ruling to the state's highest criminal court.

What does this mean for the 2,000 or so past cases where Texas courts already allowed this now-deemed unreliable testimony? On that the jury is out. For now we know for sure the evidence won't be allowed in criminal trials henceforth in Texas' First District, and especially since Deputy Pikett has retired and no one else in the state performs the procedure, possibly this may be the beginning of the end for the use of dog-scent lineups in Texas.

For more background on dog scent lineups see this public policy report (pdf) from my employers at the Innocence Project of Texas, published while I was furloughed from the group for reasons of fiscal austerity.

10 comments:

The more evidence we disallow, the more likely our pets can go free. Video evidence is opposed, eye witness testimony is opposed, "snitches" are opposed. Nothing must stand in the way of our pets being allowed to be free and celebrate their deeds.

Grits asked, "What does this mean for the 2,000 or so past cases where Texas courts already allowed this now-deemed unreliable testimony?"

Doesn't it mean that all those defense attorneys can sit by their mailbox and wait for the sheriff's depts to let them know about this now discredited junk science? Isn't that what the Innoncence Project recommends?

The state used this nonsense "science" in a murder case we handled a couple of years ago. Complete BS. Keith Pikett is a snake oil salesman. I wonder how he sleeps at night knowing that he has undoubtedly caused the conviction of innocent citizens.

Anonymous 05:33 apparently has no problem with people being convicted using manifestly unreliable evidence, and presumably opposes even attempts to ensure evidentiary reliability. Does this "contributor" really think that law enforcement should just decide who they think is guilty and then be allowed to present just any old snake oil in court? Sad.

This is the other side of the coin from the confrontation clause debate in some ways and an extension of it in others.

Certainly if we can persuade judges to properly evaluate junk science in their role as gatekeepers and give them the proper evidence to do so, then we can avoid merely having to litigate the application of clearly erroneous techniques.

However, the ability to circumvent the confrontation clause by allowing subsequent expert's using previous expert's data, without knowing the flaws that went into data collection, prosecutors may be able to clothe junk science in the veneer of legitimacy.

I worry about how intelligent but less scrupulous prosecutors might make use of current and developing case law to do just that.

Its an issue that comes up often in drug and DWI cases where substances or blood are being tested in crime labs.

Keith Pickett is what prosecutors call payed for whore. Sad to say he probably sleeps well,all the bad ones do. Evil reigns when good men remain silent,thank you trial judge for not remaining silent. It takes a lot to go against the good ole boy mentality,but only a good man can stand up for whats right,a bad man hears and sees and says no evil so evil can reign on.

Southern, daily and good for you

Grits for Breakfast looks at the Texas criminal justice system, with a little politics and whatever
else suits the author's fancy thrown in. All opinions are my own. The facts belong to everybody. Who is this guy?

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Woodlands

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"